• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Paul

Birdies Bye Bye: Joint Press Release by Prof David Bellamy and Mark Duchamp

March 28, 2008 By Paul

We have received the following message from Israel :

“Following a press release last week it seems that several of the leading industrial companies in Israel are going to enter the wind business. These are deeply connected to leading politicians.

Our ministry of environment is quite hopeless. The future seems bleak.”

From Gibraltar, from Sicily, from the US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, and now from Israel, day by day more bad news come in from the main bird migration flyways of the world. For windfarm developers think nothing of erecting their wind turbines in migration bottlenecks. Wind speed and maximisation of profit is their main concern.

Birds are killed by the large blades, whose tips revolve at speeds exceeding 100 mph while deceiving the victims by an appearance of slowness. In Sweden, one wind turbine is reported to have killed 895 birds in one year – ref : California Energy Commission, A Roadmap for PIER Research on Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines in California, Dec. 2002, quoting Benner et al. (1993).

They also get killed by their powerlines, which are built next to each windfarm to carry puny amounts of this very expensive, intermittent electricity to the grid en route to your homes. According to the report “Protecting Birds from Powerlines”, high tension lines may kill over 500 birds per km per year in migration zones – ref : Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats – Birdlife International (2003). Smaller windfarms may not require high tension lines, but overhead cables are still needed to connect to the distribution network, and they too maim and kill birds that collide in the fog, or at night, or while fleeing some danger.

In short : if someone wanted to set about exterminating the world’s migrating birds, placing windfarms in migration hotspots would be looked upon as best practice.

We are not doing any better in the UK. For instance, the “Bird Sensitivity Map to Provide Locational Guidance for Onshore Wind Farms in Scotland” designates practically the whole of the Western Isles as highly sensitive ; except for two areas, one of them being the site where a windfarm project is seeking approval (Pairc).

Yet the Pairc environmental statement predicts the possible death of 66 -165 golden eagles as a result of collisions with the giant blades. No other project in Scotland declares that it may kill so many eagles ; and the subject of migrating birds is poorly addressed.

The applicant for the Pairc windfarm is Scottish and Southern Energy.

The same map marks the whole of the Shetlands as highly sensitive, except for a few tiny yellow spots – presumably where Scottish & Southern Energy plans to erect more wind turbines. How on earth will migrating birds be able to avoid the giant rotors when adverse winds push them towards one of these “yellow spots” ? or when they fly or make landfall at night ?

Yet a bird society is actually supporting a large windfarm project on Shetland. Don’t they know the island is a crucially important staging post for migrating birds ?

Until these and many other pertinent questions are answered by the ornithological fraternity we ask that all those who cherish Britain’s heritage of migratory and other birds ask their favourite bird society why windfarms are allowed in migration corridors, e.g. in the Hebrides or in the Shetlands ? Also ask your electricity suppliers how much of the electricity supplied to your homes comes from wind. Details from BWEA’s web site indicate that windfarms only supply 1.5% of Britain’s electricity. Then ask yourselves if the slaughter of our birds is really necessary, and join the thousands who are already campaigning against the erection of these levitra wind monsters across Britain.

Co-signed on March 26th 2008 by :

Professor David Bellamy,
and Mark Duchamp.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

Articles on Australia’s Carbon Canutism

March 27, 2008 By Paul

THE Rudd Government is prepared to stare down a demand to compensate power producers for the effects of the carbon trading scheme foreshadowed in its review of climate change policy.

Power producers say that without structural assistance the value of their assets will fall sharply and investors will be reluctant to commit to new plants, causing power shortages.

The Australian, ‘No to carbon payout claims’

SINCE May 2002, when interest rates again started to rise, home loans in Australia have grown to about a trillion dollars today. Business borrowing has now passed $700 billion.

Were interest rates 3 per cent lower today, as they were in 2002, the national annual interest bill would be about $50 billion less. And although there may now be signs of changing buyer behaviours, such sustained lifts in interest costs have had little observable impact upon the appetites of households and businesses for debt, so far.

In the same period, petrol costs have increased by about 10 cents a litre per year. Were petrol prices the same today as in 2002, the national fuel bill would be $25 billion lower each year. Yet we are buying more cars, travelling further and using more petrol than ever before even as petrol prices continue to lift.

The Australian, ‘Helping neighbours is key to cuts’

STRIKING greenhouse gas reduction deals with big developing countries, particularly our trading partners, might be a better method of dealing with climate change than pursuing a plan focused on imposing increasing costs on domestic energy users.

Writing in the opinion page of The Australian today, leading corporate figure Ziggy Switkowski questions whether relying solely on a gradual build-up of energy costs is the most effective strategy for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Dr Switkowski’s entry into the debate comes as the Rudd Government formulates Canberra’s response to climate change, with its adviser Ross Garnaut arguing that the planned carbon-trading scheme should not compensate coal-fired power stations.

The Australian, Greenhouse deals ‘beat carbon trading’

Reminder: New Paper from the Virtual World: Stabilizing Climate Requires Near-Zero Emissions

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Economics

Biodiesel from Trees in Queensland

March 27, 2008 By Paul

Farmers in North Queensland are doing their bit to be environmentally friendly by investing in a tree that produces diesel.

Mike Jubow, a former cane farmer and now a nursery wholesaler, says diesel-producing trees are a long-term investment.

“If I’m lucky enough to live that long enough – I’m 64 now – it is going to take about 15 to 20 years before they are big enough to harvest the oil so that I can use them in a vehicle,” he said.

Read the entire ABC News article, ‘Qld farmers invest in diesel-producing trees’

There’s also a similar article in The Syndney Morning Herald, ‘Farmer planning diesel tree biofuel’

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Energy & Nuclear

The IPCC: On The Run At Last by Bob Carter

March 26, 2008 By Paul

UN climate body in panic mode as satellite temperatures turn down and a hard winter lashes both hemispheres

A soprano thrillingly hits her top-A, sighs with relief at achieving the desired effect, and moves on. But not the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose climate alarmism started to crescendo in 2001 in the Third Assessment Report (3AR) with the statement that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely (>66% probable) to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”.

Recently, in their Fourth Assessment Report (4AR), and faced with their failure to convince the public that the sky is falling, the IPCC delivers even more preposterous advice in ever shriller tones, saying that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely (>90% probable) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. The wobble around top-A is clearly discernible.

The press, most of whom have firmly identified with the alarmist cause, continues to appease the Green gods by faithfully running IPCC’s now unrealistic scientific propaganda, thereby stoking public alarm; the science is a done deal, they say, and the time has come to stop talking. According to UK journalist, Geoffrey Lean, all that is lacking to solve the global warming “crisis” is political will from governments.

Well, thank the Lord for that lack. For the IPCC’s 2007 final Summary for Policymakers shows that the climate alarmists are at last on the run. Their evidence for dangerous, human-caused global warming, always slim, now lies exposed in tatters for all to see.

In contrast, the alternative, persuasive and non-alarmist view of climate change is well summarized in two recently issued and readily available documents. The first is a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations, which was released at the UN’s Bali conference last December, supported by the signatures of 103 eminent professional persons. The second is the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, the release of which coincided with the launch of the International Climate Science Coalition at a major climate rationalist conference in New York in early March.

The evidence for dangerous global warming adduced by the IPCC has never been strong on empirical science. Endless circumstantial scare campaigns have been run about melting glaciers, more droughts and storms and floods, sea-level rise and polar bears, but all founder on one inescapable problem – as does Mr. Al Gore’s over-hyped science fiction film. And that is that we live on a naturally variable planet. Change is what planet Earth does on all scales, and so far not one of the alleged effects of human-caused global warming has been shown to lie outside normal planetary variation. Sea-level rising? Sure, it happens. And the appropriate response is adaptation, as the Dutch have known for centuries.

Stuck with the absence of empirical evidence for dangerous warming or abnormal change, in 2001 the IPCC turned to graphmanship, giving prominence in its 3AR to the so-called “hockey-stick” record of temperature over the last 1000 years. The hockey-stick graphic, which appeared to show dramatic increases of temperature during the 20th century compared with earlier times, has now been exposed as statistical chicanery and, thankfully, is nowhere to be seen in the 4AR.

No hockey-stick and no empirical evidence, what is a man to do? Well, obviously, turn to virtual reality rather than real reality: PlayStation 4 here we come.

The IPCC’s expensive and complex computer models can be programmed to produce any desired result, and it is therefore not surprising that they uniformly predict warming since 1990. Meanwhile, the real-world global average temperature has stubbornly refused to obey this stricture. It exhibits no significant increase since 1998, and the preliminary 2007 year-end temperature confirms the continuation of a temperature plateau since 1998 to which is now appended a cooling trend over the last 3 years.

Is global cooling next?

“Best fit” of yearly average temperature

Lower atmosphere global temperature differences (0C) from 1979 – 1998 average

untitled.bmp

“Global warming theory indicates that temperature rise due to increasing carbon dioxide emissions should be most prominent at heights of 5-10 km in the lower atmosphere; instead, more warming is occurring at the surface. For the lower atmosphere, the satellite data indicate that, since the 1998 El Nino when temperatures spiked 10C due to a rise in water vapour emissions (the principal “greenhouse gas”), global temperatures dropped sharply, then stabilized and now show signs of continuing down – is global cooling next? (data courtesy of Professors John Christy and Roy Spencer, University of Alabama , Huntsville ; a best-fitted spline curve represents longer term temperature trends).”

Read the entire Canada Free Press article here.

Dr. Bob Carter is a Research Professor at James Cook University, Queensland, Australia, who studies ancient environments and climate, and whose website is at http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/new_page_1.htm

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Whaling in the North Part II 2008 and Listen to a Humpback

March 25, 2008 By Paul

1) The Icelandic Minke Whaler’s Association states on its website “A conceivable agreement within the IWC?”

A rough translation:

“There has been an intersessional IWC meeting in London in March. According to the Icelandic IWC Commissioner, Stefan Asmundsson, there are no proposals that the IWC will start to regulate commercial whaling, even if such hints/ rumours have circulated in the Icelandic media.

However, there is a will within the IWC for a change, as it is obvious that the current system doesn’t work in a satisfactory way.

The IWC was funded to manage whale hunting, through the Committee. There have been disagreements in the Scientific Committee, for example on humpback whaling, that has been banned since the 60’s.

The SC has however been united in many issues , for example re the minke whale stock around Iceland. The stock is robust and can be managed for whale hunting. The question is how large should the quota be.

The IWC must reach a compromise. It must start working in accordance with the original Convention it was based on. Otherwise the whaling nations must withdraw from the IWC and depend on its own scientists.

Listen to a humpback whale

2) The Norwegians are currently in the Southern Oceans conducting research on krill on the survey
ship “ the G.O Sars”. The Norwegians are one of the big actors in this field, with factory ships in the Southern Oceans.

To study the krill, platforms, sonar, hydrofons were launched. One of these platforms were visited by a curious humpback whale.

The humpbacks were very curious and approached the survey ship. It seemed according to the crew that
The Southern Hemisphere humpbacks did dare to come closer to the vessel than humpbacks in northern seas.

The SH humpbacks are as well bigger than the NH ones, and can reach 18 meter.

Listen to the humpback through the hydrofon ( scroll down to “ LYDKLIPP : KLICK FOR Å HORE! “ and click on the text! Amazing sounds that Libby might interpret?

Humpbacks dominate

3) As has been mentioned above, the survey or research ship , G.O Sars, is currently in the Southern Oceans, between Cape Town and the Antarctica.

They have observed lots of humpback whales, about 103 animals. The pods are about 2-4 whales, usually adults together with calves. The humpbacks are usually observed near the ice, where they consume krill. They can easily eat 500 kg in a short while / “ in a gulp”. Krill is the primary food during the summer season.

The humpbacks are also very curious about the research ship. The ship has observed sperm whales, minkes, humpbacks and Fins, according to the ships diary, states Norwegian fisheries paper, Fiskeribladet.

Cheers,
Ann Novek
Sweden

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Whales

Sign Up to Endorse Declaration Against Man-Made Climate Fears!

March 25, 2008 By Paul

One of the most important outcomes of The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York City conference was the production of the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change, a copy of which you can read below. The coordinators of the Declaration are opening endorsement up to individuals who support the declaration but were not physically at the event. These ‘remote endorsers’ of the declaration will be added to separate lists identified either as a “climate expert” or simply as an interested “citizen of the world”.

Please contact Tom Harris at the International Climate Science Coalition at
tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net, if you would like to add your name to the list. There are 167 endorsers to this point, 94 of whom were at the conference and 63 experts who signed on later. For supporters of the declaration who are not climate experts, ICSC have created a third category, “Citizens of the World” which, once the number of endorsers gets large enough, they will publish to their Web page at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/.

Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

We, the scientists and researchers in climate and related fields, economists, policymakers, and business leaders, assembled at Times Square, New York City, participating in the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change,

Resolving that scientific questions should be evaluated solely by the scientific method;

Affirming that global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life;

Recognising that the causes and extent of recently-observed climatic change are the subject of intense debates in the climate science community and that oft-repeated assertions of a supposed ‘consensus’ among climate experts are false;

Affirming that attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 emission reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering;

Noting that warmer weather is generally less harmful to life on Earth than colder:

Hereby declare:

That current plans to restrict anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a dangerous misallocation of intellectual capital and resources that should be dedicated to solving humanity’s real and serious problems.

That there is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change.

That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate.

That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation, and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples.

That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis.

Now, therefore, we recommend –

That world leaders reject the views expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided works such as “An Inconvenient Truth”.

That all taxes, regulations, and other interventions intended to reduce emissions of CO2 be abandoned forthwith.

If you would like to publicly endorse Heartland Institutes declaration on climate change please email tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 27
  • Go to page 28
  • Go to page 29
  • Go to page 30
  • Go to page 31
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 81
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

November 2025
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
« Jan    

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital